D&D (2024) D&D Monster Manual (2025)

[SlyFlourish]

3rd party creators are just fans who are publishing RPG books, and like the rest of us, have a range of opinions on the game changes and what we should call them. I chuckle at how some creators are handling this on various Kickstarter projects.

The ones I respect simply say something like . . .

• Compatible with 5E, the world's greatest fantasy roleplaying game! This project was designed before the new 2024 5E revised rules were released and do not take into account any changes. However, we're confident our project is fully compatible! After we get all 3 new core books and have a chance to process the changes, we might release an addendum if we feel it necessary.
• Or . . . Compatible with 5E, the world's greatest fantasy roleplaying game, both the 2014 5E rules and the new 2024 5E revised rules.

I've certainly seen some tortured statements that confuse the issue, or insist on odd nomenclature like 5.24E or even 6E!

Thats what I did and am doing.

 

[the Jester]

Except in 4e artillery monsters were specifically not Brutes. They had fewer hit points, but high AC, and higher accuracy. Just the opposite of 4e brutes with high HP, low AC, low accuracy, & significantly more damage. So no, those are not examples of ranged "brutes." The just examples of ranged monsters/npcs, not the same thing.

That's why I said "depends on what you mean by ranged brutes"- I mean, in 4e, brutes were specifically melee monsters, so if you're sticking to that definition, it's a bit like asking if there are any dogs that aren't dogs.

 

[Bae'zel]

Thats what I did and am doing.

And you’ve done an amazing job! Cheers for all of your contributions!!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think fey goblinoids make perfects sense from mythological perspective. Granted, it is a bit weird if goblins are fey but elves are not...

But these categories are pretty odd and arbitrary to begin with, and they're easy to change. I don't think fey goblinoids work with the lore of my current setting, but it is trivial to treat them as humanoids instead, like I treat owlbears as beasts.

 

[dave2008]

That's why I said "depends on what you mean by ranged brutes"- I mean, in 4e, brutes were specifically melee monsters, so if you're sticking to that definition, it's a bit like asking if there are any dogs that aren't dogs.

Not really though. There were brute dragons and they still had breath weapons. It is not like a 4e brute can't have ranged attacks.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think fey goblinoids make perfects sense from mythological perspective. Granted, it is a bit weird if goblins are fey but elves are not...

But these categories are pretty odd and arbitrary to begin with, and they're easy to change. I don't think fey goblinoids work with the lore of my current setting, but it is trivial to treat them as humanoids instead, like I treat owlbears as beasts.

Yeah, although I’m a fan of Goblinoids having Fey Ancestry, the PC race being humanoid and the monsters being fey is definitely weird to me. Eladrin have the same problem.

 

[Imaro]

Because for decades they were telling a story through the lore. Lore changes do matter to me. Agree to disagree. I don't see the lore of the worlds of D&D as presented from 1e or before to a few years ago (when WotC announced they no longer care about it as anything but an idea mine) as any different conceptually from a franchise like Star Wars or Star Trek. They were telling a story through the lore and then gave up.

What lore are you talking about? Original D&D? BECMI? 1e? 2e? 3.x? 4e? Or 5.0... Because none of these use the same lore.

 

[mamba]

Eh, I don't really see the Keen Hearing and Smell thing as a flavor loss.

it no longer distinguishes between things. If you turn invisible, the dog still had a better chance of finding you due to hearing and smell. Now they are just generally slightly better, but the different senses no longer matter.

This also was not the only thing I referenced, I prefer bite and claw over rend, at a minimum for higher CR monsters. Dragons etc. absolutely should do different things, for a lion I do not care.

 

[Chaosmancer]

There is a nigh infinite gap between "not caring about lore" and "loving lore, but treating it as a changeable game tool".

I would say the current attitude towards lore at WotC is healthy.

Yeah, honestly, canon is just a pain in the neck. Even the most carefully curated, exquisitely mapped canon ends up with problems.

And, as I stated earlier, many of these changes are taking us BACK or emphasizing things that were too subtle before. A Shambling Mound dealing lightning damage is a change to the lore... but it makes so much sense and ties in with their abilities so much better than not having that before.

Yeah, making Goblins fey is a change back to older understandings of what they were, and while it makes them immune to charm person... so are giant spiders, wolves, and zombies which are also classic starting enemies.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't see my claims as bogus, obviously. I also try not to be insulting in my discourse.

Then as I have asked you for months now, do you have any evidence that the designers have not made the game they wanted to make? Because you keep stating that if they had just done things in the manner you would have preferred, then they could do that. Meaning you must have some evidence that they didn't get to do that.

But, you don't have that evidence. What you have is the insistence that the game would have been superior if they followed your design, instead of theirs, because your design is the one they really wanted to follow.